Under God

It was "Protestant" ministers that were were supported. Even Unitarians were considered "Protestant."


Read for yourself what the Massachusetts Constitution said:

...the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. And the people of this Commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. Provided notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. And all monies paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends: otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said monies are raised.

Here is some information on the struggle to establish a separation of church and state in Massachusetts. The source is the great Sanford Cobb's "The Rise of Religious Liberty in America: A History."

The struggle in Massachusetts was more protracted. There was the same political adoption of the Church question as in Connecticut, perhaps with a shade less of bitterness, while to this was added another element which threatened the very existence of the old Puritan Church.1 The strife began promptly on the adoption of the constitution of 1780, which some of the dissenters construed as exempting them from filing certificates of dissent and from payment of tithes. To test the claim a Mr. Balkom of Attleboro, in 1781, refused to pay and, the tax having been collected by levy, brought suit for its recovery. The case went against him in the justice’s court, but on appeal to the county court the sentence was reversed. This should have settled the question for the State, but it did not, and the old custom still generally obtained.

Some years afterward, a Mr. Murray, a Universalist minister, brought suit for recovery of tithes paid by his parishioners. In defence the State’s attorney argued that “a minister, who denied the eternal punishment of the wicked, was not a teacher of piety, religion, and morality,” within the meaning of the constitution! But the court gave decision for Murray, and in 1799 the legislature passed an act allowing such suits for recovery, from which act a later decision of the supreme court took much of its life by deciding that ministers of unincorporated societies were not public teachers, and therefore could not claim the privileges of the law.

Meanwhile the Unitarian defection was gathering force and under the law had an immense advantage, so soon as it could persuade a majority of citizens to its views. The law made the Church a town institution, and gave the choice of minister to the town meeting. It was thus easily possible for the town meeting to override the orthodox portion of the community. This danger made itself evident in the great Dedham case, the issue of which was so momentous for the Church of Massachusetts.

The majority of the Dedham Church were orthodox, while the majority of the town were of Unitarian proclivities. In 1818 the minister of the Church resigned, and the town chose a Unitarian as his successor. The Church refused to assent to this choice, and the case was carried to the supreme court, which decided that the constitution “gives to towns, not to Churches, the right to elect the minister in the last resort.” This decision gave the Church perquisites and property to the Unitarians, and the Orthodox were forced to make a new Church for themselves on the voluntary system. A like result followed in very many places, and the old Puritan Church found itself turned out of house and home by the very powers it had contrived to give it lasting security. This was the death-blow to the long-moribund theocracy. The constitutional convention of 1820, following the erection of the State of Maine, attempted to meet the religious question, but through the opposition of the conservative element succeeded only in the abolition of religious tests for office. In 1833 the Church was finally disestablished. Tithes were abolished, the voluntary system made universal in the state, and the towns discharged from all concern and power for Church affairs.

 

It was "Protestant" ministers that were were supported. Even Unitarians were considered "Protestant."

In 1833, Massachusetts was way out of line with the spirit of the times as it pertained to religious liberty and government support of religion. Ten of the thirteen original States had abolished government support of religion fifty-seven years earlier.

Read for yourself what the Massachusetts Constitution said:

...the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. And the people of this Commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. Provided notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. And all monies paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends: otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said monies are raised.

Here is some information on the struggle to establish a separation of church and state in Massachusetts. The source is the great Sanford Cobb's "The Rise of Religious Liberty in America: A History."

The struggle in Massachusetts was more protracted. There was the same political adoption of the Church question as in Connecticut, perhaps with a shade less of bitterness, while to this was added another element which threatened the very existence of the old Puritan Church.1 The strife began promptly on the adoption of the constitution of 1780, which some of the dissenters construed as exempting them from filing certificates of dissent and from payment of tithes. To test the claim a Mr. Balkom of Attleboro, in 1781, refused to pay and, the tax having been collected by levy, brought suit for its recovery. The case went against him in the justice’s court, but on appeal to the county court the sentence was reversed. This should have settled the question for the State, but it did not, and the old custom still generally obtained.

Some years afterward, a Mr. Murray, a Universalist minister, brought suit for recovery of tithes paid by his parishioners. In defence the State’s attorney argued that “a minister, who denied the eternal punishment of the wicked, was not a teacher of piety, religion, and morality,” within the meaning of the constitution! But the court gave decision for Murray, and in 1799 the legislature passed an act allowing such suits for recovery, from which act a later decision of the supreme court took much of its life by deciding that ministers of unincorporated societies were not public teachers, and therefore could not claim the privileges of the law.

Meanwhile the Unitarian defection was gathering force and under the law had an immense advantage, so soon as it could persuade a majority of citizens to its views. The law made the Church a town institution, and gave the choice of minister to the town meeting. It was thus easily possible for the town meeting to override the orthodox portion of the community. This danger made itself evident in the great Dedham case, the issue of which was so momentous for the Church of Massachusetts.

The majority of the Dedham Church were orthodox, while the majority of the town were of Unitarian proclivities. In 1818 the minister of the Church resigned, and the town chose a Unitarian as his successor. The Church refused to assent to this choice, and the case was carried to the supreme court, which decided that the constitution “gives to towns, not to Churches, the right to elect the minister in the last resort.” This decision gave the Church perquisites and property to the Unitarians, and the Orthodox were forced to make a new Church for themselves on the voluntary system. A like result followed in very many places, and the old Puritan Church found itself turned out of house and home by the very powers it had contrived to give it lasting security. This was the death-blow to the long-moribund theocracy. The constitutional convention of 1820, following the erection of the State of Maine, attempted to meet the religious question, but through the opposition of the conservative element succeeded only in the abolition of religious tests for office. In 1833 the Church was finally disestablished. Tithes were abolished, the voluntary system made universal in the state, and the towns discharged from all concern and power for Church affairs.

 

The Northwest Ordinance Did Not Provide For Government Support Of Religion

The intent of the first sentence of Article III of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was to bamboozle the New Englanders by implying (but not explicitly saying) that the Ohio Territorial Government was obligated to encourage the Protestant religion when in fact the Congress had no such intention.

This trickery was accomplished to aid Manasseh Cutler and his business associates with the Ohio Company to convince New Englanders to buy land in the Northwestern (Ohio) Territory and relocate there.

It was believed that the New Englanders would be more favorably inclined to migrate to the Ohio Territory if they believed that the Protestant religion would enjoy the official support of the government as the religion did in three of the New England States.

However, there was no provision in the Ordinance to actually “carry into effect” what Article III implied and what many assumed it meant. The legislative history of the article shows that the intent was not government support of religion.

The Continental Congress in 1785 voted 17 to 6 against including a provision in the “Ordinance For Ascertaining The Mode Of Disposing Of Lands In The Western Territory” that would have explicitly required “the support of religion” in the Western Territory. Journals of the Continental Congress; Volume 28, Page 293; April 23, 1785. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=028/lljc028.db&recNum=304&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28jc0281%29%29%230280001&linkText=1

One of those who voted against government support for religion in the Territory was John Vining of Delaware who, four years later, was one of the six men who framed the final version of the First Amendment.

The Ohio Territory was never surveyed under the 1785 act because of hostile Indians. In 1787, Manasseh Cutler and the Ohio Company offered to buy a huge tract of land from Congress for half a million dollars. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was framed around the Ohio Company’s offer. Cutler got the deal he wanted, except for government support of religion in the Territory.

The Continental Congress, during the framing of the 1787 Ordinance, rejected a proposed provision that reserved a lot in each Township for the purposes of religion. Instead it inserted the clause that implied but did not explicitly require encouragement of religion.

The U. S. Congress denied the 1801 petition of sundry citizens and inhabitants of Wayne County, Ohio, praying that the aid and patronage of Congress may be extended to them and that a township of land belonging to the United States be appropriated in the county for the support of the Gospel, and for erecting the buildings necessary for the celebration of divine service. Source of Information: Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 6th Congress, 2nd Session, page 875.

An 1802 attempt to enact legislation to “carry into effect” government support of religion in the Northwestern Territory was defeated in the Senate. Annals of Congress, Senate, 7th Congress, 1st Session, Page 21.

In 1811 the House of Representatives Committee on Public Lands, reported unfavorably on the petition of various inhabitants of Washington County Ohio that a section of land be set apart for the support of religion. The report stated that the petitioners had no legal claim to the government support of religion. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=029/llsp029.db&recNum=233

The language in Article III of the Nothwestern Ordinance was carried over into the Ohio Constitution of 1802 and included in Section 3 of the Ohio Bill of Rights of 1802 that reads a follows:

That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent, and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious society or mode of worship, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office of trust or profit. But religion, morality and knowledge being essentially necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instructions shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision not inconsistent with the rights of conscience.

A “Bible Party” sued the Cincinnati School Board, in 1850, claiming that the Article III language carried over into Section 3 of the Constitution required the public schools to teach the Bible. The Ohio State Supreme Court ruled that the language in Section 3 did not require Ohio to support Christianity and wrote that, “Religion lies outside the true and legitimate province of government."

 

Show me an appeal to God that grants the government any power over the people's religion? The God appealed to is the same God that ordained a separation between the things that belong to God and those that belong to Caesar.

 

See #3 above.

 

C'mon! The phrase "wall of separation" between church and state was only written about in a letter by Jefferson eleven years AFTER the constitution. And it was a unidirectional argument. <u>The "wall" that he referenced was a wall that kept government out of the church - NOT the church out of government.</u>

This underscores what I am saying. The colonists only significant concern was keeping federal government out of the affairs of the church. They was no formal thinking of a "Divine Law of Separation of Church and State"...

 

This only supports my point: the early leaders made frequent references to God and the Bible and were in general not afraid to mix government and religion.

 

Yes, but stop and think about that. Think what a drastically different world it was. Can you imagine if today the Congress passed a law using public monies to pay clergy??? Again, that's my point: it was a completely different world...

 

Why? I agree with you in general. I think they were very fearful of any government intrusion into the church.

The only thing that I disagree with is that you think that they tried to keep Christianity out of all government practices and documents, etc. They wanted God and in many cases Christianity recognized.

Furthermore, much of their thinking on the Constitution was shaped by the Bible. In their minds, they were incorporating Biblical principles into the Constitution itself.

That's our only areas of disagreement...

 

It is misleading to imply that the Separation of Church and State was developed in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson's famous statement in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists was preceded by over two hundred and fifty years of “statements” regarding the Separation between Church and State, the Doctrine of Soul Liberty, the Right of Judgment in Matters of Religion, the Equal Rights of Conscience, the Separation between Religion and Government, the exemption of Religion from the Authority of Government, or whatever you want to call it. The final ruin of the Church State commenced in the early 1770’s.

Elisha Williams was preaching the separation of church and state back in 1774 as the Right of Private Judgment in Matters of Religion. Founding Father Samuel Stillman was advocating for it 1779 as “the line between the things that belong to Caesar, and those things that belong to God.” Thomas Jefferson was not even the first one to draw on the idea of “separation” or the notion of a “wall” to designate, illustrate or explain the legal concept of no civil-temporal-government power over the duty which we owe to the Creator. Thomas Jefferson in all likelihood borrowed the "wall of separation" phrase from James Burgh.

James Burgh

James Burgh (1714-1775) was radical Commonwealth Whig who was one of Britain's foremost spokesman for political reform whose writings influenced political thought in revolutionary America. Burgh brought to his writings a dissenter's zeal for religious toleration and a distrust of established churches. Indeed, his antipathy toward ecclesiastical establishments was a logical extension of his staunch defense of religious toleration.

Burgh thought religion was a matter between God and one's conscience; and he contended that two citizens with different religious views are "both equally fit for being employed, in the service of our country." He alerted his audience to the potential crippling influences of established churches. Danger existed, he warned, in "a church's getting too much power into her hands, and turning religion into a mere state-engine."

Therefore, in his work Crito (1766, 1767), Burgh proposed building "an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil." "an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil." He dismissed the conventional argument that the public administration of the church was necessary to preserve its salutary influence in society.
"I will fairly tell you what will be the consequences of your setting up such a mixed-mungrel-spiritual-temporal-secular-ecclesiastical establishment. You will make the dispensers of religion despicable and odious to all men of sense, and will destroy the spirituality, in which consists the: whole value, of religion. . . . Shew yourselves superior to all these follies and knaveries. Put into the hands of the people the clerical emoluments; and let them give them to whom they will; choosing their public teachers, and maintaining them decently, but moderately, as becomes their spiritual character. We have in our times a proof from the conduct of some among us, in respect of the appointment of their public administrators of religion, that such a scheme will answer all the necessary purposes, and prevent infinite corruption;--ecclesiastical corruption; the most odious of all corruption.
Build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil. Do not send a graceless officer, reeking from the anus of his trull, to the performance of a holy rite of religion, as a test for his holding the command of a regiment. To profane, in such a manner, a religion, which you pretend to reverence, is an impiety sufficient to bring down upon your heads, the roof of the sacred building you thus defile."

Samuel Stillman

One of the founding fathers was a Baptist minister named Samuel Stillman. He voted in favor of giving legal effect to the U. S. Constitution as a delegate to the 1788 Convention of the Commonwealth Of Massachusetts on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Stillman had preached, since 1779, the necessity for a line between the things that belong to Caesar, and those things that belong to God. He maintained that the government ought not in any manner to be involved in the salvation of souls and that it had no authority to establish our sentiments in religion or the manner in which we would express them.
The authority for Stillman’s principle of no government authority over religious matters was the Savior’s directive to ”Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.” It was “most evident” to Stillman that the Lord was trying to teach us that there are some matters where the government has no authority.

Conclusion

It is misleading to imply that the Separation of Church and State was first developed or formulated in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. It was formulated in the early 1500’s and Thomas Jefferson was merely one of hundreds of individuals who advocate it.